Is CCFC website breaking league rules (1 Viewer)

Have we got a club

Well done...they probably hadn't even noticed until you pointed it out....if we get an extra deduction over this, we will hold you personally responsible for highlighting it to the authorities......

psgm1 said:

http://www.football-league.co.uk/re...association-dual-interests_2293633_2125750#94

94 Publication of Ownership
94.1 Each Club shall publish the identities of the ultimate owner (Person, not Entity) of each Significant Interest in the Club (as that term is defined Rule 1.1 of Appendix 4). That information shall as a minimum be published on the Club's official website on a page accessible directly from the home page of that official club website.


IF you go to ccfc website, this is NOT possible, and doesa NOT show the individual who ultimately owns Coventry City.


A minor error in the scheme of things but could it be used to hurt the club? The LAST thing the club needs is to be tripped up over not having a league-compliant website!

Click to expand...

Fair point - though extremely trivial in the grand scheme of things related to our club.
What about other clubs official sites? Do the show such detail (can't be arsed to look personally)

There was a big hullaballoo about this a year or two ago..they get away with it as nobody has more than 10% of the club I think. Death by a thousand cuts..

psgm1 said:

http://www.football-league.co.uk/re...association-dual-interests_2293633_2125750#94

94 Publication of Ownership
94.1 Each Club shall publish the identities of the ultimate owner (Person, not Entity) of each Significant Interest in the Club (as that term is defined Rule 1.1 of Appendix 4). That information shall as a minimum be published on the Club's official website on a page accessible directly from the home page of that official club website.


IF you go to ccfc website, this is NOT possible, and doesa NOT show the individual who ultimately owns Coventry City.



A minor error in the scheme of things but could it be used to hurt the club? The LAST thing the club needs is to be tripped up over not having a league-compliant website!

Click to expand...

Don't you have better things to do with your Saturday afternoons?

Skyblue4u said:

Don't you have better things to do with your Saturday afternoons?

Click to expand...

Was just thinking this myself, must be extremely bored

As said above to be named they must own over a certain %

CCFC said:

As said above to be named they must own over a certain %

Click to expand...

so we must have at least 20 joint owners. so could these investors be using ccfc for tax avoidance? just a thought

sky blue zam said:

so we must have at least 20 joint owners. so could these investors be using ccfc for tax avoidance? just a thought

Click to expand...

11 should do it.
Tax relieve is possible - but they still had to actually put in some £30m+. Expensive way of dodging the tax man.

Godiva said:

11 should do it.
Tax relieve is possible - but they still had to actually put in some £30m+. Expensive way of dodging the tax man.

Click to expand...

Arvo's the name ,Debentures the Game,would they be considered our current custodians?

wingy said:

Arvo's the name ,Debentures the Game,would they be considered our current custodians?

Click to expand...

Arvo is only one fund ... I think there are 4 or 5 others. Plus a few individuals, but it may have changed during one of the countless restructures.

Godiva said:

Arvo is only one fund ... I think there are 4 or 5 others. Plus a few individuals, but it may have changed during one of the countless restructures.

Click to expand...

Is It concievable that since ARVO's input and Creation the other funds could have been written down in SISU's Portfolio?:thinking about:

wingy said:

Is It concievable that since ARVO's input and Creation the other funds could have been written down in SISU's Portfolio?:thinking about:

Click to expand...

It's not impossible.
TF did say last summer that a substantial amount of the total debt had been written off. Nobody has seen the latest accounts (as they haven't been handed in yet) so we can't know for sure if this ... or anything like it ... has ever happened.

Hopefully a lot of information will be revealed as the administrator finishes his job and the club (if Holding wins the golden share) releases accounts to get us out of the transfer embargo.

Godiva said:

It's not impossible.
TF did say last summer that a substantial amount of the total debt had been written off. Nobody has seen the latest accounts (as they haven't been handed in yet) so we can't know for sure if this ... or anything like it ... has ever happened.

Hopefully a lot of information will be revealed as the administrator finishes his job and the club (if Holding wins the golden share) releases accounts to get us out of the transfer embargo.

Click to expand...

Why did it take the club so long to file the accounts and get us out of an embargo, last season?

psgm1 said:

http://www.football-league.co.uk/re...association-dual-interests_2293633_2125750#94

94 Publication of Ownership
94.1 Each Club shall publish the identities of the ultimate owner (Person, not Entity) of each Significant Interest in the Club (as that term is defined Rule 1.1 of Appendix 4). That information shall as a minimum be published on the Club's official website on a page accessible directly from the home page of that official club website.


IF you go to ccfc website, this is NOT possible, and doesa NOT show the individual who ultimately owns Coventry City.



A minor error in the scheme of things but could it be used to hurt the club? The LAST thing the club needs is to be tripped up over not having a league-compliant website!

Click to expand...

Dont forget that CCFc have an FLI website (thats Football League Interactive) and means that the FL bought all income rights from CCFC for their website and FLI provides the site!

dongonzalos said:

Why did it take the club so long to file the accounts and get us out of an embargo, last season?

Click to expand...

I can only guess (but that's what I almost alwas do anyway) - this is my take on the subject:

Fisher/Waggot were employed in January last year. They have most likely been given the task of balancing the finances and make sure the club became independent of the sisu funds. A task initiated when Dulieu replaced Ranson.
Putting together a budget that met the requirements was probably quite difficult and they must have realised the rent was the largest item on the cost sheet - apart from the players wages.

So in January-February they must have approached ACL and CCC to start negotiation about reducing the rent and buying the Higgs shares.
Note: PWKH said on my direct question that the club - to his knowledge - didn't ask for a rent reduction prior to the rent strike, so either he is right and there never was a negotiation, or he was kept out of the loop (not really conceivable), or he was not being totally honest.

Anyway - sisu have filed their case to the courts that there was a joint plan to distress the ACL mortgage, so someone at ACL must have known and maybe even accepted the club wasn't going to pay rent until Higgs shares (and possibly the CCC's shares as well) had been bought by the club).

The rent issue must have been quite delicate and time consuming to plan and must have required all kind of legal consultations before it could be executed.

Reducing the costs going forward was probably not enough. It is not unthinkable that the club was out of cash and this must be the reason they sold Jukebox.

So I think sisu didn't sign off the accounts until the immediate cash problem was solved and the future cost reduction (rent) was planned and executed. Only then would they know how much was needed to fund the club for the next 12 months.

I would think they made two budgets - one based on survival in the championship and a second based on relegation. The difference between the two was probably mostly the player wages. That doesn't mean the club planned for relegation as some have suggested, but it would be stupid not to have a contingency plan should the worst happen.

The transfer embargo last season was probably never a real problem as it seems the no 1 issue was to acquire part or all of ACL, and until that happens spending significant money on transfer fees will not be possible.

As I said ... I am only guessing.

psgm1 said:

The POINT is would it force sisu to actually define PRECISELY who owns the club!

IF sisu are breaking the rules on ownership of the club. So MAYBE just MAYBE it could trip up sisu!

Doubt it will TBF, but surely anything that could winkle out sisu....



Don't forget the only way Al Capone was brought to justice was through tax evasion - A minor offence in the great scheme of things, but look at what it did to him!

Sisu are using semantics to stay in power (ccfc holdings v ccfc ltd), it WILL be the fine print that will trip up the loser in this!

Click to expand...

So now you compare sisu with Al Capone ... why not Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper?
Or activate Goodwin's Law and bring in the Nazi's.

There are no proof or even suggestion that sisu (or their funds) are on a tax evasion scheme.

psgm1 said:

The POINT is would it force sisu to actually define PRECISELY who owns the club!

IF sisu are breaking the rules on ownership of the club. So MAYBE just MAYBE it could trip up sisu!

Doubt it will TBF, but surely anything that could winkle out sisu....



Don't forget the only way Al Capone was brought to justice was through tax evasion - A minor offence in the great scheme of things, but look at what it did to him!

Sisu are using semantics to stay in power (ccfc holdings v ccfc ltd), it WILL be the fine print that will trip up the loser in this!

Click to expand...

You're a bit late on the case with this one. Their was even a Parliamentary debate about it which mostly protested that the FL should insist on more transparency, but nothing came of it.